Waste time with dignity!

Politics

Harrison Ford was at Sydney Opera House yesterday, attending a fan event promoting his new film, Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

While in Sydney, Ford took a shot at Donald Trump.

The New York Times reported last week that Trump had said that he enjoyed movies with heroic presidents — singling out Air Force One, the 1997 films in which Ford plays a president who has to fight off a group of Russian terrorists when they hijack the presidential plane.

“My favourite was Harrison Ford on the plane,” Trump said. “He stood up for America.”

When asked by Channel Ten’s Angela Bishop what he thought of Trump’s remarks, Ford replied: “It’s a movie.”

“Donald, it was a movie,” he continued, while looking into the camera and shaking his head. “It’s not like this in real life, but how would you know?”

Terrorists – of whatever variety – are nothing more or less than a scourge on society. As a Christian I am acutely aware of the horrors people of my faith have committed. I am convinced that most terrorist atrocities carried out by extremist Muslims are at least partly the outcome of decisions made and actions taken by the West. In general terms in this context, “West” also means “Christians”.

How to remedy that is a vexed question – and one to which our leaders seem to have no answer. Mostly they seem to believe that attack is the best form of defence. That belief flies in the face of the teaching of the Christian faith that underpins (or at least is the historical basis for) most of today’s Western countries. Moreover, they all seem oblivious to the possibility that they or their predecessors helped to create the situation – and consequently take no responsibility for it.

The following article was written by David Donovan, Independent Australia‘s creator and managing editor. I was so impressed that I’m reproducing it in full. It would be nice if our so-called leaders took note of it.

Terrorism can be beaten — but not by fighting

David Donovan

When it comes to “fighting terrorism”, it seems to me that we, in the West, almost always get things exactly wrong.

I mean, even the term “fighting terrorism” ‒ which we sometimes call the “War on Terror” ‒ is an oxymoron. Because as soon as we start fighting – or warring – then terror will inevitably ensue.

And so, in the wake of the terrifying Paris attacks, you can hear the the drumroll of fear and the call to arms.

François Hollande, the French president, for example, has said France is “at war” with ISIS and has immediately closed his nation’s borders. Closer to home, we hear more of the same, and talk of amping up the security apparatus. Of boots on the ground in the Middle East. Of even more obtrusive anti-terror laws. Of even greater targeting of Muslims and refugees. And people who maybe look a little different.

All the things we have tried before. All the things that have worked so very well up until now.

Of course, this is a predictable response. An understandable response. When someone bloodies your nose and knocks you to the ground, the first thing you want to do, in your outrage and humiliation, is to leap to your feet and strike them back. To hurt them as much, if not more, than they have just hurt you.

But is this a clever response? Is anything done in anger ever really clever?

And, of course, for the “reclaimed” souls among us who bubble effervescent about the supposed backwardness of Islam, it is not a very “Christian” response either. Well, not New Testament Christian anyway. The Old Testament ‒ the ancient Hebrew bible ‒ does talk about an “eye for an eye” and of vengeance being exacted “sevenfold” upon on ones enemies, but Jesus Christ was really more of a SNAG.

I mean, take this Messianic quote:

‘You have heard that it was said: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.’

In times like this, irrespective of your belief system, it strikes me that maybe our zombie god has a point to present. It seems to me that the only way you can win against terror is by taking away people’s fear — or at least not adding to it. By love and compassion, not hatred and war. By setting a good example and winning people to your side, not trying to utterly rub out of existence those who oppose you.

Back to Paris. U.S. President Barack Obama said on the day of the attacks that ISIS had been “contained”. He’s been pilloried for this comment, of course.

People say that, no, the attacks in Paris shows that ISIS is vibrant and strong. That it is on the rise.

But I think they are wrong. That Obama may be right.

People do not blow themselves up ‒ not even religious fanatics ‒ if they have other, better, more attractive options. A power that is comfortable and secure in its ascendancy does not send out suicide bombers. By definition, again, suicide bombing is a tactic of last resort. The Paris attacks, it seems to me, were a desperate tactic, perhaps from a declining organisation, under pressure, losing militarily and hoping to recruit new fighters to its cause. To bolster its shrinking inventory of murderers by extinguishing a few in the City of Light.

And so striking back in anger is exactly what our attackers wants us to do. Why else would ISIS attack innocent civilians other than to stimulate outrage and encourage furious retaliation? When the West begins vilifying Muslims and limiting public freedoms, they must believe, then the conditions become right for more desperate and angry young men to join their side. And that closing borders might give many less angry young men no other choice. Join ISIS or die might be the only options available to them.

And so what is the answer? What do we do when pitiless murderers strike out against innocents?

The answer is to stay vigilant and protect each other, but not to strike back in fear and anger. The answer is compassion. The answer, if this is at all possible, is to stop the wars and the killing. To remove the men of war. To stop shooting. To stop bombing. To own up, perhaps, for the sins of the past ‒ our own atrocities ‒ the invasions, and the looting, and the lies, and to try to show that Western culture, democracy and secularism is something worth aspiring to. Perhaps we could even try to open up our borders to all the millions of displaced people all over the world. The ones without homes. The ones without hope.

Perhaps we could try to rid the world of its rampant inequality and unfairness. Where the West has all and the rest have fuck all. Because this is what drives the young, angry and humiliated men to ISIS and its analogues. That makes people so angry and humiliated they feel their lives are forfeit. That makes them take up arms and take up bombs, and strike back at innocent people, at play around their homes.

I think that’s what Jesus would likely do. But this isn’t a Christian thing. This is what any compassionate, aware human being would do, Christ simple being a classic and highly ironic public representation. Because most of the Christians I know are nothing like their Christ. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Because being like Christ is far too hard for Christians. We have weapons, and we have armies, and we have war and so we will fight, of course. And the terror will escalate. And the piles of dead will rise to the sky. And the fighting ‒ yes, the fighting ‒ will go on forever.

And some day soon it will be impossible to tell who were the terrorists and who were the ones we sent out to fight them ‒ to avenge us ‒ as if ever there was ever any difference at all.

Except if we refuse to fight. If we turn the other cheek, perhaps we may save us all.

Today I posted a letter to one of the candidates for my electorate in the federal election coming up on September 15.

I’m rather cynical about politicians – whether federal, state or local government, and whatever their party affiliation. They tend to speak a lot without actually saying much, rarely answer questions directly, and are too fond of promoting themselves.

Thank you for your letter and the enclosed leaflet. Your letter is undated (yours is not the first; do politicians believe it’s not necessary to date their letters?) but I received it last Friday.

I am the quintessential swinging voter, so please keep in mind as you read this that I do not support, nor am I a member of, any political party. I have a pretty cynical view of politicians of all persuasions; very few give me any confidence that our nation is in good hands, and even fewer strike me as having the best interests of the nation at heart. John Howard’s oft-repeated statement that he would remain prime minister as long as it was in the best interests of the Liberal party exemplified for me the priorities demonstrated by nearly all members of parliament – party first, self second, nation last. In an article in The Age on 27 May [1], Andrew McLeod, ALP candidate for McEwen in 2001, tells why he has since left the party. It’s a good article, and the some of the sentiments he expresses largely mirror my own. I particularly like his statement, “The truth is we don’t need just new leaders of the two main parties. It is not about changing Abbott or Gillard. What we need is new parties.” [2]

The 2007 election gave me hope that this country could get back on track and that I could be proud of it again, as I was before John Howard destroyed it with his divide-and-conquer approach that set us one against the other and created haves and have-nots. Sadly, however, when the Labor government dumped Kevin Rudd they also dumped many of the principles which had brought them to government, and I am deeply disappointed.

While I am critical of some aspects of Labor’s record, I am also critical of the opposition. The thought of the coalition in government with Tony Abbott as prime minister is sickening. I did not like Abbott or trust him when he served under Howard, and nothing that he has done or said in the six years since then has changed my mind. The coalition has produced few policies, and those they have released are hardly worth thinking about. Take the broadband internet policy released recently, for example. It’s a half-baked solution to a problem that has already been solved efficiently, effectively and comprehensively by the government. For the sake of saving a little time and money (and the savings are small given the total cost and timeframe), your party – in deciding to utilise the existing copper cables instead of installing fibre optics cables to the final installation point – would take us back to relying on 1960s technology.
You claim that people complain to you about “out of control spending”, “rising cost of living expenses”, “our borders no longer being secure”, “mounting government debt” and “new and unnecessary taxes”. I don’t know who you have been talking to (I suspect your letter is a generic one written by Liberal headquarters and you haven’t actually been talking to anyone), but I’m not concerned about any of those things.

First, all the indicators show that – contrary to repeated opposition claims – our economy is one of the healthiest in the world, and our debt is small. Ours was the only major Western economy to survive the global financial crisis unscathed. John Howard even admitted recently that “When the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and others tell you that the Australian economy is doing better than most – they are right.” [3] In fact, an article in The Age on 24 May [4] stated that “Australians overwhelmingly see their country as prosperous and fair…according to a new international comparison.” The article also said that “…in Australia, two-thirds [of those surveyed] said the economy was doing well.” Moreover, the OECD has declared that Australia is “the world’s happiest nation based on criteria including income, jobs, housing and health…” [5] That makes your claims sound rather specious. I have been a disability pensioner since 2004; I rent my home, and I have no savings and very few assets, yet I’m better off now than I was at the end of the Howard years. The GST – introduced by a coalition government in direct contradiction of a promise made by John Howard, I might add – caused my cost of living to increase because it taxed items I buy, but the tax offsets brought in at the same time did not benefit me because my income at the time was low and I did not pay income tax. We needed tax reform, but the GST was not the solution. In contrast, the carbon tax that you say people complain about will help the country, and my pension has been increased to offset its effects. The Howard government made no attempt to help low income earners cope with the GST.

Second, about our borders. The coalition is very fond of talking about “illegal” immigrants. Given that the fuss about our borders is all about refugees seeking somewhere safe to live, the word “illegal” is incorrect and you guys must know that. It is not illegal to be a refugee, nor is it illegal to seek asylum. The Howard government damaged our international reputation immeasurably with its treatment of asylum seekers, and it’s reprehensible that the Labor government under Julia Gillard has continued the same treatment. I am disgusted with both parties for the way they have treated (and in your case, intend to continue to treat) these people. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with border security; it’s a humanitarian problem that needs to be addressed accordingly. Australia’s whole attitude towards refugees needs critical examination and reform. Moreover, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship needs a figurative bomb placed under it. Many of the problems related to asylum seekers appear to be caused by the department’s incompetence, its antipathy towards refugees, and its deliberately slow assessment of refugees’ applications for asylum. According to The Age [6], department secretary Martin Bowles, in a budget estimates hearing on Monday, claimed that asylum seekers are held in detention only as long as it takes to conduct health and security checks, yet he admitted that none of the those who arrived after August 13 (when the government introduced its “no-advantage” policy for refugees who arrive by boat) have had their claims processed. That could take up to five years! A spokesman for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said it was “imperative” that Australia begin a “fair and effective asylum procedure, with due process, as soon as possible”. Our share of the world’s asylum seekers is tiny. Even many much poorer nations cope with huge numbers of refugees. In 2009 we received 0.53% of global asylum applications and ranked 47th in the world [7], yet we have trouble processing their applications. The role of ASIO in deciding refugees’ fates also needs to be reassessed – particularly the policy of refusing to allow people to know why they have been determined to be risks.

Third, Tony Abbott is happy to criticise the government about “great big new tax”es, but where are they? He’s long on rhetoric and very short on actual helpful suggestions. His main policy has been to say a great big loud “No!” to everything the government has proposed. Fortunately, there are some thinking people in parliament and Tony’s ramblings are seen for what they are, and his relentless negativity has had a minimal practical effect. We do have a couple of new taxes, but they are far from unnecessary. Actually, Mr Abbott has his own “great big new tax” – his paid parental leave scheme, funded by a five per cent levy on corporations earning more than $5 million. The government claims that home owners and small business operators will suffer interest rate hikes because of the impact of this tax on the banks, an assertion supported by “an unnamed ‘senior banker’ [who] told The Australian that the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, ANZ, and National Australia Bank will each pass on the cost of the levy”. [8] Clearly, this tax will have an impact on more than just the corporations that will actually pay it.

Ms Petrovich, you will need to do better in seeking my vote. Spouting Tony Abbott’s various mantras is not helpful – although I concede that it must be hard to campaign with no policies. You would do better to focus on things that matter. Here are some suggestions, in no particular order:

Improve and extend public transport. Ours is way inferior to the systems many overseas countries have. I don’t use public transport, but it desperately needs decent funding and efficient organisation.

Restore the railway to Whittlesea.

Get freight off our roads and back on to rail networks where it belongs, and ban huge trucks that clog up our roads and increase road-maintenance costs. Rail is a much more efficient way to move large quantities of freight, it just needs to be organised properly. Stop pandering to the road transport lobby.

Stop further privatisation. It doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked where it has been applied, and we do not need any more of it. Public facilities, utilities and land should be publicly owned, and they need to remain publicly owned. I was horrified to read in The Age on May 22 [8] that some Victorian state Liberals are pressing for privatisation of the ABC and SBS. They must have rocks in their heads! At present the ABC and SBS are just about the only remaining independent news sources we have in this country; we cannot afford further concentration of media ownership. I note that Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull have both ruled out privatisation of either organisation, but Mr Abbott’s word is flexible, so I don’t hold out much hope.

Provide infrastructure – particularly arterial road upgrades – before new areas are opened for subdivision. I came to live in this area in 1991, and Plenty Road between Whittlesea and Mill Park was congested then. Since that time numerous new residential and a few industrial/commercial subdivisions have been opened up and traffic has been increasing accordingly, yet it’s only recently that two short lengths of Plenty Road have been upgraded. It still has only one lane each way past several of the new residential areas. In a Local Today article [9] Cr Rex Griffin, mayor of the City of Whittlesea, highlights the problems caused by lack of planning by successive state governments. I note that your brochure partly addresses this need.

Reform funding for health care, particularly hospitals.

Put to death and bury the whole idea of performance bonuses and quotas where they relate to public institutions such as schools and hospitals. Make people accountable and institutions efficient, effective and standards-compliant, but do it without using monetary incentives and forcing artificial, arbitrary quotas. Both are open to abuse; neither has achieved its aim.

End public funding of private schools and put the money into making our public schools the best they can be.

Abolish local government. It doesn’t need to be recognised in the Constitution, it needs to be reformed. Abolishing it would probably be the best way to achieve that.

Prohibit the obscenely high salaries and performance bonuses paid to corporate executives. No one is worth the amount some of these people receive as salary, and the whole bonus culture has led to abuse. Since these payments are corporate expenses, both have led to increased costs for all of us.

Ban political lobby groups and all donations to political parties. Lobby groups have their own agendas, often at odds with what is best for the nation. Political donations are open to abuse, and create an obligation to the donor on the part of the recipient. Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy has reportedly “called for tough new laws to rein in political fund-raising in Victoria”. [10] Australia should not go any further down the path that politics in the USA has taken – where lobbyists and donors create and control the political agenda, to the detriment of the people of that country. Election campaigns should be funded by the candidates themselves or by an allowance funded by taxpayers – in either case with a limit to the amount spent (possibly on a per-elector basis). Party administration costs must be the responsibility of the parties themselves.

Take a more independent stance on the world stage. We do not need to slavishly follow the lead of the US, the UK, or any other nation, and our standing in the international community would benefit. I admired New Zealand’s refusal to get involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Dismantle existing foreign bases and installations on Australian soil, and make it impossible for any to be established here in the future.

Introduce stricter rules on foreign ownership of Australian land and businesses.

Increase Australia’s foreign aid commitment. As one of the world’s wealthy countries our record in this area is spotty at best.

Give same-sex couples the same rights and privileges enjoyed by married people and those in de facto relationships. This is not a question of morality (if it was, de facto couples would not be treated the same as married couples), it is a question of discrimination and fairness.

Investigate why interference that suddenly began in February 2012 has caused television reception in my area to deteriorate to the extent that the only digital signal I can receive is SBS’s, and the analogue signal is so bad that only the ABC is watchable – and that barely so. Before the interference started I had very good reception of all digital channels using only a basic indoor antenna.

I know some of these are state issues but the federal government provides much of the funding and surely should be able to influence what happens at the state level.

Finally, a couple of points about public office.

First, elected officials too often seem to forget that they hold office at their electors’ pleasure. John Howard found out the hard way that even prime ministers are subject to that principle. If you are elected, I hope you do not forget how you came to your office, and I hope you do better than the present member for McEwen. I’ve not heard or seen anything of him, or any achievements, since he was elected, except for one propaganda letter in 2011 (it’s possible he would have sent more later, but I asked to be put on his do not mail list). I was very unimpressed because I had only recently written two emails to him about asylum seekers. Neither of those emails was answered, yet he saw fit to send me a letter about nothing, complete with a four-page glossy brochure (which included eleven photos of himself, and otherwise contained nothing of substance) funded from his printing and communications entitlement. Needless to say, I will not be voting for him. Perhaps, if you are elected, you could follow Fran Bailey’s example, because she really was a good local member and achieved a lot for the electorate. I voted for her on occasion.

Second, I have developed a theory that people elected or appointed to public office succumb to “public office syndrome”. The theory goes that no matter how sensible, talented, effective and willing a person appears to be, as soon as they take up their office they are required to check their brains at the door. If you are the successful candidate I hope you are able to prove me wrong!

If you have legitimate aims and intentions for McEwen I will be happy to consider them when I decide how to vote in September. If all you have to offer is further generic propaganda, then please add me to your do not mail list.

The crazy US electoral system delivered good and bad in Tuesday’s elections.

Sanity prevailed, and Barack Obama was given a second term. I shudder to think how things might have been had Mitt Romney won. Interestingly, a few states voted differently in the different elections. For example, Montana, Missouri and West Virginia elected Democrat governors and voted Democrat for the Senate, yet voted Republican in the presidential election. North Dakota elected a Republican governor, voted Democrat in the Senate, and Republican in the presidential election. The Democrats actually won several Senate seats from the Republicans.

The bad was the House of Representatives result — which sees the Republicans still in the majority, and probably another four years of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.

Satire Wire summed it up nicely… “Americans went to the polls Tuesday and voted overwhelmingly to continue banging their heads against a wall.”

I’m pretty cynical when it comes to politicians. There was a time when I followed a party line (although I’ve never been a member of a political party) but these days I’m a swinging voter. On election day I vote for the candidate I think has the best interests of all of us at heart. Usually it’s a case of “which one will do the least damage?” since those who genuinely put the welfare of the nation first are few, and far between.

Hence, I’m not particularly hopeful that anything positive will follow the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development which took place last week. The odd name came about because this conference came twenty years after the first Earth Summit, also held in Rio de Janeiro. At that one world leaders vowed to roll back climate change, desertification and species loss. So, what has changed since then? Very little that I can see.

I’m a bit nonplussed about Rio+20. UN chief Ban Ki-moon opened the summit, which saw 191 UN members (including 86 presidents and heads of government) get together. SBS reported that, beginning on Wednesday, “Some 191 speakers are expected to take the floor until Friday when the summit leaders are to give their seal of approval to a 53-page draft document agreed by negotiators on Tuesday.” If “negotiators” produced an agreement on Tuesday – before the conference even began – what was the point of the three days of speeches? Our worthy leaders trying to impress each other, or perhaps even more likely, to impress the voters back home. Bah, humbug to all of ’em!

There was one bright star there, though. Brittany Trilford, a 17-year-old student from New Zealand, challenged leaders to lay the foundation for a more sustainable world. “I stand here with fire in my heart. I’m confused and angry at the state of the world. We are here to solve the problems that we have caused as a collective, to ensure that we have a future,” she said. “I am here to fight for my future…I would like to end by asking you to consider why you are here and what you can do here. I would like you to ask yourselves: Are you here to save face? Or are you here to save us?”